Wednesday, February 08, 2012

[jules' pics] IPCC First-Order-Draft

Myohonji
Last night I had a nightmare that Susan Solomon and Thomas Stocker (aggh! Now that's a scary photo - click the link) were trying to steal my cubicle. I am very fond of my cubicle as, being by the window, it is warm and bright and sunny every cold winter morning. It can be no coincidence that the reviews for the IPCC FOD are due. Here is a calming Zen temple (Myohonji again) to make it all better.

--
Posted By Blogger to jules' pics at 2/08/2012 03:51:00 PM

7 comments:

Steve Bloom said...

What's so scary-looking about TS? To me he just looks suitably sciency.

grinsted said...

The Fod reviews are also ruining the last days of my parental leave. I haven't been having any nightmares though. Probably because I'm too exhausted.

Paul Matthews said...

Some people may be taking the FOD review process a bit too seriously!

James Annan said...

Probably. However, it is the only chance we get to make sure that this select bunch have correctly represented our work (unlike this, for example).

Paul Matthews said...

James, thanks for that interesting example. If the 'experts' ignored your complaint then, they may well do so again.
I am fully expecting all my comments to be ignored, so spent very little time on it and only made a few comments.
But if my comments are acted on I will put more effort into round 2.

Steve Bloom said...

Just read through WGI Ch. 9 to satisfy my curiosity, and as I had feared it really does read as if the authors were struggling very, very hard to avoid pointing fingers at particular models, or, perish the thought, implying that any of them ought to be marched off the long end of a short plank.

Not only does the discussion on pp.70-71 seem very cursory, I do wonder how one can be confident that the ensemble is doing better even while being unable to say much of anything about individual models? I see that at least one specific proposal (Mahlstein and Knutti 2010) for grading the models based on a fundamental metric gets mentioned but not discussed.

Is the Chinese model still the most crap of the lot?

James Annan said...

Well obviously I'm not going to cite or quote anything that may have been provided to me solely for the purpose of review and on the condition that I do not cite it or quote from it :-)

OTOH my comments will be published by the IPCC, possibly at the end of the process - I haven't checked any possible dateline for this. Actually, I would hope to see responses at the time of the 2nd draft, so at least I would know why they had ignored me :-)